ZAVERCHAND MANEKCHAND (STHAPIT) SAURASHTRA KHADAYATA VANIK SAHAYAKA TRUST,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4654/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 July 20263 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) provided only one opportunity to the assessee to respond. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee trust applied for registration under Section 12AB of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(E) denied the registration, and the assessee appealed this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the denial of registration under Section 12AB was justified without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 12AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 14/07/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai [“Ld. CIT(E)”], dated 02.03.2026 in denying registration u/s 12AB of the Act.

2.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Ld. CIT(E) is not justified in rejecting the application filed by the assessee

ITA 4654/MUM/2026 Zaverchand Manekchand (Sthapit) Saurashtra Khadayata Vanik Sahayaka Trust for registration u/s 12AB of the Act without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to respond and explain before him. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that only one opportunity has been given to the assessee to respond to the notice issued which the assessee could not comply with for some reason. Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for considering the application of the assessee for registration u/s 12AB of the Act afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

3.

Heard rival submissions and perused the orders of the Ld. CIT(E). Perusal of order of the Ld. CIT(E) we observe that only one opportunity has been provided to the assessee. Thus, in the interest of justice we restore the issue in appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) who shall decide the application for registration afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 14 /07/2026 Kunal

ITA 4654/MUM/2026 Zaverchand Manekchand (Sthapit) Saurashtra Khadayata Vanik Sahayaka Trust

Copy to: Zaverchand Manekchand (Sthapit) Saurashtra Khadayata Vanik Sahayaka Trust 1 10, Gokul Building, 59, R.B. Mehta Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077, Maharashtra COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Room No. 601, 6th floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL TE Building, 2 Mumbai-400026, Maharashtra

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 12AB

All 5,972 judgments and leading authorities on Section 12AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →